Yesterday, Vice President Biden said that America would follow ISIL to the "gates of hell" to bring the terrorist group to justice. The Secretary of Defense said that the United States does not want to contain ISIL. It wants to destroy them. And Democratic senators are starting to sound more like the GOP war hawks who have been attacking President Obama over the past six years.

Democratic senator Kay Hagan joined John McCain and Lindsey Graham's side last night and her Democratic debate. Al Franken penned a terse letter to the White House calling for military action. Other Democrats followed.

But there were more important developments yesterday than political stances driven by internal polls. The United Arab Emirates condemned in the strongest terms the Islamic State's existence. Count on the UAE to support American action against ISIL. The Iraqi Parliament is now asking for help as other Arab countries prepare to follow suit.

And while it is one thing to have Senator Hagan calling for strong use of force, it's quite another to get Muslim countries joining in a battle against ISIL. America asking questions first and shooting missiles later may actually mean our country may not have to go it alone in protecting the Middle East.

So with the UAE and Iraq as a starter kit for our Arab Coalition of the Willing, the question to ask now is whether Egypt is? Where is Saudi Arabia? Where is Jordan? And where are the countries whose very existence depends on American troops stopping this cancer spreading across the region?

Those questions will be answered in America's favor if our leaders keep acting deliberately instead of foolishly rushing head first into another Middle East war.

This article tagged under:

I got a call from a friend after the news broke Tuesday of the beheading of another American, and he asked if New York was still a safe place to raise his children. Mika told me that one of her friends also called her yesterday afternoon and was visibly shaken in a way she hasn't seen since the months following 9/11.

Americans are awakening to the fact that the enemy we are facing is no JV team. They're not even just another international terror organization. ISIL is the face of evil and of Islamic extremism mutated into its most deadly form. These terrorists are sweeping up territory, seizing hundreds of millions in stolen money, grabbing hundreds of American passports and determined to use all of these resources to kill as many Americans as possible.

There are times when paranoia and irrational fear grab ahold of Americans and their political leaders -- and that fear leads our country down a disastrous path. Vietnam and Iraq are two obvious examples. But ISIL is not a third.

Over the past few weeks, many Democrats have thanked me for my even handed approach to this crisis. A few right wingers have attacked me for not mindlessly bashing the president. I would gently remind them that the storm rising in the Middle East is unlike few others in recent memory. And in these challenging times, the enemy is not Barack Obama -- the enemy is ISIL.

Americans understand this and also get why Barack Obama is not shooting first and asking questions later. Our war-weary nation will support that caution up to a point. But make no mistake of it -- the president will eventually move against ISIL because he has no other choice.

And as the threat to Americans grow, Republicans should be seen as being on the side of the commander in chief against ISIL instead of undermining his foreign policy at every turn. In times like these, that's not just good politics -- that's good for America.

Sign me up for Americans hanging together and facing down this threat with a Democratic president, just as Democrats stood with a Republican president in the months that followed September 11th. That unity turned to acrimony soon after the Iraq invasion, but here's hoping that the real threat coming out of Iraq today might just bring us all closer together.

This article tagged under:

I read Frank Bruni's piece in the New York Times this morning about how Americans are facing a crisis of confidence in their country. Frank explains how fewer Americans look to the future with optimism, and I can certainly understand why. The images flickering across our TV sets and streaming on phones have been of race riots, international chaos, and a broken national government. The economy keeps crawling along, U.S. corporations are willing to desert their country for a tax break, and Washington won't do a thing about it.

And yet I remain optimistic. I still believe that when our leaders move forward with strength and resolve, good things can happen. President Obama has spent much of his first six years strangely detached and emotionally removed from the problems he is paid to solve. But I am hopeful that is changing--despite his golf schedule on the Vineyard.

Just two weeks ago, the United Nations declared that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq had reached its highest level as ISIS sought the systematic extermination of religious minorities within their reach. While Europe sat back and did nothing, American air power protected those in danger and prevented genocide. The president then moved to arm the Kurds, help Iraqis retake a strategic dam, and after the execution of journalist jim Foley, put Mr. Foley's murderers on notice that they are now in the U.S. military's crosshairs. And one more thing: Barack Obama basically told those terrorists demanding a $120 million ransom that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

After this country suffered through the shock of Mr. Foley's death, another Massachusetts family received the news that al Qaeda was releasing their son who had been a hostage for two years. Why? Because even al Qaeda seemed to get the message that Americans don't reward terrorism by paying millions in ransom. That is why you can expect the next Westerner to be targeted for kidnapping to come from a country like France, whose ransom payments are bankrolling terror group across the Middle East.

That's not to say that the United States always gets it right. Ronald Reagan's negotiating with terrorists almost brought down his presidency. And Barack Obama's negotiations with the Taliban over the release of Bowe Bergdahl sent s terrible message to our enemies. But the president's resolve against the threat of ISIS seems to be stiffening as his endless golf outing comes to an end.

Now would be a really good time for Republicans to do something out of character by encouraging the commander in chief to stay strong and make this terrorist threat look like the JV team that he once said they were. Republicans who are desperate to shift the blame of Iraq's chaos to a Democratic president should stop trying to shift blame for the chaos in Iraq and work together with Democrats to curb the power of a terrorist organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars, a land mass the size of Jordan, and hundreds of passports that will allow their operatives to cause havoc in our homeland.

Updated 3:45 p.m. EDT on Aug, 26.

This article tagged under:

It's far too early to handicap Rand Paul's odds for running away with the GOP nomination. But his reaction to the events unfolding in Ferguson, Mo., shows that Kentucky's junior senator is rapidly becoming one of the Republican Party's most important voices.

For too long, the GOP has been perceived as disinterested in the plight of African Americans. Every four years, Republican presidential candidates register in the single digits among black voters, while conservative congressional candidates do no better. Republicans get hammered, in part, because of ideological differences with a demographic that is more supportive of an activist government than the GOP base. But Republicans have also managed to come off looking insensitive to people of color even when debates had nothing to do with the size of government.

Conservative voices reflexively rushed to the defense of a troubled, self-appointed neighborhood watchman after he provoked a showdown with a black teenager armed with little more than Skittles. Conservatives were too busy rushing to George Zimmerman's defense to understand why Trayvon Martin's killing was so frightening to parents in that community. At the time, I talked about my party's troubling blind spot on race -- even when that debate had nothing to do with ideology.

My defense of Trayvon Martin caused a backlash among conservative voices online and on the airwaves. In fact, I couldn't find one Republican on the national stage to voice their concern over that tragedy. But after this week's chilling events in Ferguson, Sen. Paul has dared to speak out against the racial injustice that is all too obvious to members of the African American community.

In a Time Magazine op-ed, Sen. Paul writes that “anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.”

I must say that it was nice to see a Republican speak as passionately for the property rights of a black homeowner in Middle America as many did for a racist rancher who wanted to get a free ride off of taxpayers. I'm sure there will be a backlash against the Kentucky senator, but Sen. Paul is charting the right course. He is seeking common ground where possible and siding with people of color in their struggle against a growing police state.

We don't know if Sen. Paul will even run for president next year, but it seems clear that he is determined to change the Republican Party for the better.

This article tagged under:

Since a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little politicians and partisan barkers in the public square, I did not expect the usual suspects to have the intellectual capacity to grasp a statement that didn't neatly line up with their political punch list for the do's and don'ts of mindless political posturing.

Let me start with simple talk that even the most simple minded can understand.

America will stand with Israel, who is America's strongest ally in the region.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, who started this confrontation by launching a thousand missile attacks on the people of Israel.

Israel uses their missiles to protect its people.

Hamas uses their people to protect its missiles.

UN condemnations matter little since they have long been a hotbed of anti-Israeli sentiment. What matters most now is that Israel's Arab neighbors in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan support the Jewish state over the Islamic terrorist outfit.

Turkey and Qatar have regrettably chosen to be backers of Hamas - but they are practically alone in the region.

It is also true that the United States has less leverage to move both sides to a peaceful solution because of Israel's longtime distrust of President Obama. Lining up with Turkey and Qatar in peace talks does not help bridge that divide.

But in international diplomacy as in domestic political life, we must follow the wisdom of William F. Buckley and take the world as we find it -- and not how we wish it to be. And the reality on the ground in Gaza is clear to all.

The prolonged killing of children and women in Palestinian territories will only serve to weaken Israel and strengthen Hamas. Tragically, this comes at a time when Hamas leadership was on the run, hated at home and isolated abroad. Every day that goes by with images of children being pulled out of the rubble of bombed-out schools, hospitals and public markets is a day that only makes Hamas stronger and threatens Israel's long-term security.

That is bad for Israel, bad for America and bad for Middle East peace.

And blindly supporting Israel’s politicians when their actions may be strengthening Hamas is no way to show our support or friendship.

This article tagged under:

There has been some chatter about Barack Obama's response to the shooting down of last week's commercial airline flight and Ronald Reagan's reaction to the Russians blowing up Korean Flight 007 on September 1, 1983. This morning, I made the mistake of saying Mr. Reagan immediately cut short his vacation and returned to the White House after the shoot down to condemn the Russians' action. Many on the left have tried to insulate President Obama from criticism by falsely claiming that Mr. Reagan didn't speak out on the Russian attack of Korean Flight 007 for four days. The Washington Post wrote as much this weekend. But like my claim this morning, this one is also wrong.

The morning of the attack, President Reagan sent his Secretary of State out to hold a press conference at 10:45 a.m. and supply members of the press with intercepts and intelligence from the Russian pilots and air traffic controllers. And far from sitting on his hands for four days, Ronald Reagan went out the next morning and accused Russia of committing a "terrorist act" while expressing his "outrage," "shock" and "disbelief" that the Russians would use "violence and intimidation" to advance their goals.

Over the past few days, President Obama's hardiest defenders have used Mr. Reagan's nationally televised address from the White House on September 5 to suggest that Mr. Obama's response may end up being just as strong as Ronald Reagan's. Only time will tell.

This article tagged under:

My grandpa once told me, "Boy, don't fish in a puddle. Fish in a pond." And he should know. He emigrated from Ireland, sailing across the Atlantic on a plastic raft kept afloat by empty Guinness cans. (How's that one, Mark Leibovich?)

Actually, that story isn't exactly true. Neither is the fact that anyone in my extended family ever passed down that quote. I think I heard it in a sermon a while back. But regardless, it applies to the post so I figured I'd use it.

I like the saying. Too often, we limit ourselves because we don't think big enough or because we don’t focus clearly enough on our goals. When I pitched Morning Joe to Phil, the audience I wanted to "fish" for were influencers and anyone else who loved politics. That big pond ended up being filled by Democrats, Republicans, Independents and anyone else willing to watch a news show with an open mind. Most media watchers seem to think we succeeded in reaching that audience of influencers.

When I wrote my latest book, my focus was on Republicans. For once in my public life, I was not working on converting Democrats or Independents to the GOP cause. Instead, I wanted to deliver a strong message to conservatives on why we couldn't change the world if we couldn't win presidential elections. In the book, I repeat what I have been saying for 20 years: Republicans win presidential elections when we nominate candidates who are conservative ideologically and moderate temperamentally. That's something I even said when I was setting my hair on fire on the House floor in the 1990s. And it's a message I will gladly tell any GOP member who wants to listen. As I told supporters during my first campaign when asked to attend their small events, "Where two or more Republicans are gathered, there too will I be."

That's not to say I won't deliver the same message to Democrats. I have and will gladly continue to speak to any Democratic group that wants to hear my views on how conservative candidates can start influencing national elections again. But chances are good that on this book tour, I will get a lot more invitations to Lincoln Day dinners and Republican events than Democratic club meetings on New York’s Upper West Side.

Just as my goal was to reach influencers when Morning Joe began, I want my latest book tour to reach those same influencers who will help pick the next GOP nominee. They don't live in Manhattan, Georgetown, or Beverly Hills. Instead, the voters who will have a big say in shaping the future of the Republican Party live in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. So I will take any opportunity to share my thoughts with these and other influencers on how Republicans can start winning presidential elections again. Some might call it targeted marketing. My old Irish grandpappy would say instead that it's just me fishin' in ponds instead of puddles.

And speaking of bogus Horatio Alger tales, read Mark Leibovich's article in the New York Times Magazine about how not to seem rich while you are running.

This article tagged under:

Yesterday, I spoke of the quaint notion that politics should end at water's edge during times of dangerous international crises. That does not mean Congress should be obsequious to the president on all matters.

But I am old-fashioned enough to believe that harshly criticizing the commander in chief during dangerous international crises with the likes of Saddam Hussein or Vladimir Putin provides comfort to nation-states who chose to be our enemies.

I believed that when George W. Bush was president and I believe that today. Yesterday afternoon, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius spoke to former President Bush's and President Obama’s Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who said:

"It seems to me that trying to speak with one voice - one American voice - has become a quaint thing of the past. I regret that enormously."

So do I. There is nothing more frightening to our enemies than a strong, unified American voice.

And if the President of the United States is not providing that publicly, it is incumbent upon his rivals to offer encouragement privately. Not political broadsides when tanks are rolling. There will be plenty of time to do that when campaign season comes around. But for now, Washington leaders should measure their words a bit more carefully. The whole world is watching… especially Vladimir Putin.

This article tagged under:

With Democratic activists and the professional left crowing over a POLITICO report that 29,000 people signed up for Obamacare over the past few days, it seems obvious that the debate contours are already being drawn up for the 2014 elections.

President Barack Obama's second midterm election will most likely be decided on the same issue that dominated his first midterm race. And while neither side can predict how that debate will resolve itself over the next year, one thing is certain: The president and his Democratic allies will be forced to defend their misleading statements over Obamacare in campaign stops across red states like Louisiana, Arkansas and North Carolina.

The president repeatedly told the American people that they could keep their health insurance policies if they liked them. Unfortunately for Democrats, the Obama administration's own estimates predicted that as many as 80 percent of small-business employees would have their health care policies dropped under Obamacare.

I've previously discussed those administration estimates on "Morning Joe" over the past few weeks, but reading the language again in black and white should cause great concern for Democratic strategists tasked with keeping Harry Reid in the Senate majority leader's office.

Below is language from the Federal Register's June 2010 estimates regarding the percentage of employer coverage plans that would be terminated after ACA's passage.

"Under this assumption, the Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small-employer plans and 45 percent of large-employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013. The low-end estimates are for 49 percent and 34 percent of small- and large-employer plans, respectively, to have relinquished grandfather status, and the high-end estimates are 80 percent and 64 percent, respectively."

The language is stunning in its directness and troubling in just how much it contradicts every assurance Democratic senators gave to their constituents over the past few years. They will most likely have to spend the next year explaining why the administration's projections were so diametrically opposed to the president's own campaign promises.

This article tagged under:

I recently wrote that the real divide in the GOP is the battle between Washington Republicans and the rest of us. That point was driven home this week at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Arizona.

Outgoing RGA chairman and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal was optimistic about his party's future but was unsparing in his critique of the D.C. GOP. In fact, every governor at the conference told me — on and off stage — that Capitol Hill Republicans remain their biggest obstacle to success.

But it wasn't just governors who were complaining about the political amateurs who now occupy the party's Washington establishment. The GOP's most loyal supporters rolled their eyes in disbelief whenever the topic turned to the recent clown show in Congress. The fear of a repeat performance from Congress kept RGA members guarded in their optimism despite a new CBS News poll that put the president's approval rating at 37 percent.

Most governors at the Scottsdale meeting believe Republicans can win big in 2014 and beyond if the national party learns how to do more than just say "no." And like me, they are inspired by the kind of leadership that Republican governors are showing across the nation.

The last few months have had a searing effect on these Republicans, who know what some in Congress still don't: that you can't beat something with nothing. Simply opposing Barack Obama's disastrous policies may pick up seats in off-year elections, but it won't put a Republican back in the White House. To do that, the GOP must unify around a conservative approach to job growth and health care reform that's focused first on lifting a struggling middle class.

President Obama's program has failed. So what's next? I'm not sure, but I do know this. Whatever it is won't come from Washington, D.C.

This article tagged under:

The National Journal's Ron Fournier delivered a brutal response Thursday evening to President Obama's apology regarding the Affordable Care Act. In his column, which Fournier has used to launch one stinging rebuke after another aimed at the White House, Ron focuses on the president's broken promises:

"I'm sorry, too, Mr. President.

I'm sorry you campaigned for re-election on the famous false promise: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

I'm sorry your aides debated whether to tell the full truth (that people could keep their insurance only if it hadn't changed and if it met your standards) and decided instead to institutionalize the lie.

I'm sorry that when Americans recognized the deception you tried to reinvent history: "What we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." No, no, no, no, no – that's not what you guys said.

I'm sorry you didn't trust Americans with the truth."

I suspect few in the White House have much use for Ron Fournier about now. After all, he has been one of Barack Obama's fiercest critics over the past year. But Democrats who may despise Fournier today can expect him to deliver the same clear-eyed critiques of the next Republican administration. And when that time comes, you can also expect conservatives to complain about his biased reporting -- forgetting everything he ever wrote about Mr. Obama.

Washington needs more fair reporters like Ron Fournier. I just hope I can be fair enough myself to remember these words when Ron's wrath falls hard on the next Republican White House.

This article tagged under:

Unlike most members of Congress, Norton and her constituents feel the immediate impact of any government shutdown. That's why the D.C. Democrat went on the House floor tonight and, in the words of The Washington Post, "thundered on behalf of a 'living, breathing' city." The Post reported that she then took her Democratic colleagues to task for not supporting a Republican approach that would keep the District's vital services funded.

“Keep the District open!” Norton pleaded to a Democratic leadership team that is now falling in line behind President Barack Obama's all-or-nothing approach to the government shutdown.

Norton makes a good point. Just because "Washington" is broken doesn't mean the citizens of that city should suffer. Republicans and Democrats may never agree on the Affordable Care Act, but Capitol Hill insiders like Norton believe they could quickly come to an agreement on a D.C. spending measure. Democrats should not stand in the way of funding for the nation's capital any more than Republicans should've pursued a shutdown strategy in the first place. But politics remains the art of the possible, so let's encourage our elected officials to make deals where they can.

A great place to start is with America's national parks. Both sides could agree on a funding measure for those parks in little time and doing so would prevent politicians from watching the embarrassment of war heroes being shut out of their own memorials on national TV. Then they should listen to Norton and fund D.C. Then, who knows, maybe they could pick up a little momentum and actually start working like a functional Congress instead of a broken institution that has passed a total of zero appropriations bills this year in the U.S. Senate.

I doubt such a reasonable approach would work on Capitol Hill but at least it's worth a try.